Yes, Tom, it sounds like you are after case experiences of which I personally have a few. In the past days when I litigated cases, I brought suit in a particular which was assigned to Judge Manuel Real here in Los Angeles . (You should find a load of case on him.)
He wound up dismissing my case seven days after it was filed, and none of the defendants were served or even knew there was a case filed against them. I filed a 59(e) motion which reopened the dismissed case, and served the defendants in the meantime. Again, a few days later I received the paperwork back and a notice from the clerk that my case had been dismissed. I took the paperwork back downtown refilled it with notice that my 59(e) motion was currently pending before Manual Real, and I gave the date of the pending litigation. In the meantime, since I noticed the date of the pending motion purposely beyond the date that the defendants were required to answer, I filed a default against all of the defendants inasmuch as none responded in the case.
Judge Manuel Real then told the clerk not to file the entry of default, although the law states that the Clerk of the Court shall enter default if a plaintiff petitions for it after the date provided for answer, and there be not answer on file. Thus, he ordered the default clerk to violate the law passed by Congress, which she did.
I showed up for the 59(e) motion, where he “decided” to reaffirm his prior judgment of dismissal, saying, “If you need transportation to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, I will provide the bus fare.”
I filed an appeal with the Ninth Circuit, and the U.S. Attorney made an appearance on paper opposing my appeal. I argued that this was a default case with no appearance by any of the defendants and that no one could now appear for the very first time on the case on appeal. Furthermore, I pointed out that since the only people who had received the appellate brief were the justices themselves, how did anyone outside of the justices know to make an appearance. I suggested that perhaps the U.S. Attorney drove up to San Francisco and broke into the Ninth Circuit during the night wearing a black bandana and located which file drawer the justices’ briefs were in and used a pry bar and stole one of the briefs and answered it by the instant appearance. I then stated that if this scenario was incorrect, then there had to be a conspiracy by at least one of the justices hearing the appeal to give a copy to the U.S. Attorney so he could oppose it.
Ultimately and “strangely” the Ninth Circuit affirmed Manuel Real’s dismissal of my case and the dismissal of my petition for default against all of the defendants even though this same Ninth Circuit twice on record reprimanded Judge Manuel Real for this same conduct of dismissing cases before the defendants were even served.
This made it his third act of willful misconduct on the record, and I filed a criminal complaint with the U.S. Attorney for willfully violating the Ninth Circuit Court orders to follow due process.
I then filed a Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) for judicial misconduct against the three justices who affirmed and covered for Manuel Real clear misconduct. I then filed a second 372 against that panel for entering the conspiracy, which likewise affirmed the first panel. And lastly, a third panel against all, which was likewise dismissed. The bases for the dismissal was that I was challenging the decision of the court. But I raised the question of how a conspiracy of the justices with the U.S. Attorney in filing a opening brief in a default case was a “decision of the court,” arguing that this is clear collusion and misconduct, and had nothing to do with the decision of any court.
Ultimately, I sought to take it to the U.S. Conferences of Judges, but was barred from filing the complaint. I then took it to Congress where I was told to hire myself an attorney. I had Attorney Gary Zerman respond to the my Congressman’s statement that I should consult an attorney. They did “receive” my complaint that the system itself was not working where my case was languishing in a black hole for “eternity,” and no one could or would every answer the petition, which brings us full circle around to the need for the Federal Judicial Accountability Bill, which they now continually ignore.
- Ron Branson
From: CryerLaw@... [mailto:CryerLaw@...]
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 7:17 PM
Subject: Re: Exposing Judges
I found a list of horror stories posted on the site, but not a directory
of rogue judges. I may be looking at the wrong place, but the links you
provided are email addresses.
I haven't worked up the first inductee, yet, but the format will include
identifying info, name, court, appointment, etc., photo where available,
followed by a general description of the abominable conduct with links to
supporting document(s). If you have any posts that would provide that type of
story let me know.
The ones we have now are those I've noted through my own experiences, such
as the judge who, without motion or basis, dismissed a motion to quash
summonses simply "because the government is opposed to the petition". He did
that after learning from DOJ that I had filed interrogatories that would
force them to admit that a Special Agent had violated the automatic stay
effected by the petition and attempted to deceive and then intimidate the
summonsees to violate the stay. There was no way to legally dismiss the case
before answers were required, so he did it illegally.
Another is the judge sitting on the Kotmair 6700 case who totally
disregarded the fact that the government provided no support for it's list of
"undisputed facts" set out in its MSJ and 21 affidavits filed in opposition
proving a genuine dispute as to every one of them.
Another is the judge sitting on the Benson book-burning case who, when
Bill filed something like 64 exhibits establishing genuine fact issues (no MSJ
possible) ordered all 64 exhibits struck and, since defendant "filed no
opposing exhibits" granted the MSJ.
Still another is the judge who reshuffled the jury after learning that one juror was afraid the government might be trying to "set her up". The twelve jurors were already seated and then two alternates subsequently selected. At the end of the trial the judge decided to use a lottery system to select two new alternates over the objection of the defendant. The questionable woman's name was the first drawn and when the defense attorney asked to examine the slips in the box the clerk held up a fist of slips and said "Now you've seen them" and fled the courtroom.
One in St. Louis , during a side bar, held up a piece of paper (that had
nothing to do with the comment) and loudly stated, within hearing of the jury
"The IRS has already determined they are shams and we are not going behind
Last week, at the conclusion of a trial on a 14 felony count indictment
the judge gave the defense counsel 15 minutes for closing arguments. It was
a complicated case and she gives him one minute per count?
You might have heard of the trial of our infamous Edwin Edwards, three
time governor of Louisiana , where when faced with a hung jury the judge
determined that one juror was holding out against conviction so he removed the
juror for failing to cooperate and replaced him with an alternate. It was
later learned that throughout the trial the judge was under the influence of
powerful prescription drugs. Edwards was a crook, no doubt, but if he
isn't entitled to a fair trial then neither are we.
Each induction into the Hall of Shame will be followed by a press release
to media in the judge's area publicizing his honor's new honor and a copy
to the Court Admin Office.
I would bet ten bucks to a donut that you have a lot more. Gimme.
In a message dated 4/20/2009 6:00:46 P.M. Central Daylight Time,
Hello Tom. We post most all our expose material that comes to us and is
published, upon JAIL4judges@egroups.com also known as JAIL4Judges@yahoogroups.com It started as egroups prior to the existence of yahoogroups.com. I am the sole poster, so you need not worry about clutter by the populace. You are free to grab anything thereon and post it, either current, or in our archives going back to the turn of this past century.
Also, I am posting below the Federal J.A.I.L. Bill that has been presented
repeatedly to Congress and is awaiting for any Congressman to pick it up
and run with. The problem is that the Congressmen enjoy not having the
Federal Judiciary being a check and balance over them. Thomas Jefferson said on
November 10, 1798, “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of
confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
Obviously, Congress does not like being bound down from mischief by the
chains of the Constitution, so they entreat their jail keepers, the Federal
Judiciary, who are holding the keys to those chains, to grant them leniency.
This is why there is a total conflict of interest in pursuing a remedy
from Congress over the Federal Judiciary which is supposed to hold Congress
accountable to the Constitution. It is very easy to figure out.
Federal Judicial Accountability
& Integrity Legislation
(Federal Legislation - Version 9/1/03)
(a) Preamble. The House of Representatives and Senate Assembled find: that
an inordinate and ever-growing number of complaints for willful misconduct
have been lodged with Congress involving federal judges across this
nation; that the current Title 28 U.S.C. §372(c) (Judicial Misconduct and
Disability Act) is in many cases inadequate due to conflicts of interest of judges
judging themselves; that judicial integrity is of major importance which
affects all areas of our American society. Be it therefore resolved that the
House of Representatives and Senate Assembled hereby enact the following
legislation which shall be known as the "Judicial Accountability and
(b) Definitions. For purposes of this statute:
1. The term "blocking" shall mean any act that impedes the lawful
conclusion of a case, to include unreasonable delay and willful rendering of a void
judgment or order.
2. The term "federal judge" or "judge" shall mean any federal justice,
judge, magistrate, commissioner, or any person shielded by judicial immunity.
3. The term "Juror" shall mean a Special Federal Grand Juror.
4. The term "strike" shall mean an adverse immunity decision based upon
bad behavior as set forth by paragraph (c), or a criminal conviction as set
forth in paragraph (r).
Where appropriate, the singular shall include the plural, and the plural
(c) Immunity. Notwithstanding common law or any other provision to the
contrary, no immunities shall be extended to any federal judge except as is
specifically set forth in this statute. Preserving the purpose of protecting
judges from frivolous and harassing actions, no immunity shielding a federal judge shall be construed to extend to any deliberate violation of law, fraud or conspiracy, intentional violation of due process of law, deliberate disregard of material facts, judicial acts without jurisdiction, blocking of a lawful conclusion of a case, or any deliberate violation of the Constitution of these United States, all violations of which shall constitute bad behavior.
(d) Special Federal Grand Jury. There is hereby created within the District of Columbia a twenty-five member Special Federal Grand Jury with full federal geographical jurisdiction having power to judge on both law and fact. Their responsibility shall be limited to determining, on an objective standard, whether a civil suit against a federal judge would be frivolous and harassing, or fall within the exclusions of immunity as set forth herein, and whether there is probable cause of criminal conduct by the federal judge complained of.
(e) Professional Counsel. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to retain non-governmental advisors, special prosecutors, and investigators, as needed, who shall serve no longer than two years, after which term said officers shall be ineligible. However, with permission of the Special Federal Grand Jury, a special prosecutor may prosecute their current cases through all appeals and any applicable complaints to the Special Federal Grand Jury.
(f) Establishment of a Special Federal Grand Jury Seat. A Special Federal
Grand Jury seat is hereby created, which seat shall be located in excess of
one mile of any federal judicial body.
(g) Filing Fees. Attorneys representing a client filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury, shall at the time of filing pay a fee equal to the filing fee due in a civil appeal to the United States Supreme Court. Individuals filing a civil complaint or answer before the Special Federal Grand Jury in their own behalf as a matter of right, shall, at the time of filing, post a fee of one hundred dollars, or file a declaration, which shall remain confidential, stating they are impoverished and unable to pay and/or object to such fee.
(h) Annual Funding. Should this statute lack sufficient funding through
its filing fees under paragraph (g), and fines imposed under paragraph (q),
which amount shall be deposited regularly into the exclusive trust account
created by this statute in paragraph (j) for its operational expenses, Congress shall impose appropriate surcharges upon the civil court filing fees of corporate litigants as necessary to make this statute self-supporting, or they may appropriate any and all the necessary funds for the full implementation of this statute by legislation.
(i) Compensation of Jurors. Each Juror shall receive a salary commensurate
to fifty percent of a federal district judge prorated according to the
number of days actually served.
(j) Annual Budget. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have an annual
operational budget commensurate to twenty times the combined salaries of the
twenty-five Jurors serving full time, which sum shall be initially deposited by Congress into an exclusive trust account to be annually administered by the Controller. Should the trust balance, within any budget year, drop to less than an amount equivalent to the annual gross salaries of fifty federal district judges, the Controller shall so notify Congress which shall replenish the account, prorated based on the actual average expenditures during the budget year. Should the trust balance in any subsequent year exceed the annual operational budget at the beginning of a new budget year, the Controller shall return such excess to the United States Treasury.
(k) Jurisdiction. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall have exclusive power to establish rules assuring their attendance, to provide internal discipline, and to remove any of its members on grounds of misconduct. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall immediately assign a docket number to each complaint brought before it. Except as provided in paragraph (r), no complaint of judicial misconduct shall be considered by the Special Federal Grand Jury unless the complainant shall have first attempted to exhaust all judicial remedies available in the federal courts within the immediately preceding six-month period. Such six-month period, however, shall not commence in complaints of prior fraud or blocking of a lawful conclusion until after the date the Special Federal Grand Jury becomes functional. This provision is
intended to apply remedially and retroactively.
(l) Qualifications of Jurors. A Juror shall have attained to the age of thirty years, and have been nine years a citizen of the United States , and an inhabitant of Washington , D.C. Those not eligible for Special Federal Grand Jury service shall include elected and appointed officials, members of the Bar, judges (active or retired), judicial, prosecutorial and law enforcement personnel, without other exclusion except previous adjudication of mental incapacity, imprisonment, or parole from a conviction of a felonious crime against persons.
(m) Selection of Jurors. The Jurors shall serve without compulsion and shall be drawn by public lot by the Secretary of State from names on the voters rolls and any citizen submitting his/her name to the Secretary of State for such drawing.
(n) Service of Jurors. Excluding the establishment of the initial Special Federal Grand Jury, each Juror shall serve one year. No Juror shall serve more than once. On the first day of each month, two persons shall be rotated off the Special Federal Grand Jury and new Citizens seated, except in January it shall be three. Vacancies shall be filled on the first of the following month in addition to the Jurors regularly rotated, and the Juror chosen to fill a vacancy shall complete only the remainder of the term of the Juror replaced.
(o) Procedures. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall serve a copy of the
filed complaint upon the subject judge and notice to the complainant of such
service. The judge shall have thirty days to serve and file an answer. The
complainant shall have twenty days to reply to the judge's answer. (Upon
timely request, the Special Federal Grand Jury may provide for extensions
for good cause.) In criminal matters, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall
have power to subpoena witnesses, documents, and other tangible evidence, and
to examine witnesses under oath. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall
determine the causes properly before it with their reasoned findings in writing
within one hundred twenty (120) calendar days, serving on all parties their decision on whether immunity shall be barred as a defense to any civil action that may thereafter be pursued against the federal judge. A rehearing may be requested of the Special Federal Grand Jury within twenty days with service upon the opposition. Twenty days shall be allowed to reply thereto. Thereafter, the Special Federal Grand Jury shall render final determination within thirty days. All allegations of the complaint shall be liberally construed in favor of the complainant. The Jurors shall keep in mind, in making their decisions, that they are entrusted by the people of these United States with the duty of restoring a perception of justice and accountability of the federal judiciary, and are not to be swayed by artful presentation by the federal judge. They shall avoid all influence by judicial and government entities. The statute of limitations on any civil suit brought pursuant to this statute against a federal judge shall not commence until the rendering of a final decision by the Special Federal Grand Jury. Special Federal Grand Jury files shall always remain public record following their final determination. A majority of thirteen shall determine any matter.
(p) Removal. Whenever any federal judge shall have received more than
three strikes, the federal judge shall automatically be brought up on charges
before Congress for Articles of Impeachment by the Special Federal Grand
Jury through its special prosecutor for bad behavior and willful misconduct.
Congress thereafter shall commence to a vote on such Articles of Impeachment. Upon a conviction, the federal judge shall be permanently removed from office. He may also be held liable under any other appropriate criminal or civil proceeding.
(q) Indictment. Should the Special Federal Grand Jury also find probable
cause of criminal conduct on the part of any federal judge against whom a
complaint is docketed, it shall have the power to indict such federal judge
except where double jeopardy attaches. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall,
without voir dire beyond personal impartiality, relationship, or linguistics, cause to be impaneled special trial jurors, plus alternates, which trial jurors shall be instructed that they have power to judge both law and fact. The Special Federal Grand Jury shall also select a non-governmental special prosecutor and a federal judge with no more than four years on the bench from a state other than that of the defendant judge, (or outside of the District of Columbia, if the case so be). The trial jury shall be selected from the same pool of jury candidates as any regular federal jury. The special prosecutor shall thereafter prosecute the cause to a conclusion, having all the powers of any other prosecutor within these United States . Upon conviction, the special trial jury shall have exclusive power of sentencing (limited to incarceration, fines and/or community service), which shall be
derived by an average of the sentences of the trial jurors.
(r) Criminal Procedures. In addition to any other provisions of this
statute, a complaint for criminal conduct of a federal judge may be brought
directly to the Special Federal Grand Jury upon all the following
prerequisites: (1) an affidavit of criminal conduct has been lodged with the appropriate prosecutorial entity within ninety (90) days of the commission of the
alleged conduct; (2) the prosecutor declines to prosecute, or one hundred
twenty (120) days has passed following the lodging of such affidavit and
prosecution has not commenced; (3) an indictment, if sought, has not been
specifically declined on the merits by a Grand Jury; and (4) the criminal statute
of limitations has not run. Any criminal conviction (including a plea
bargain) under any judicial process shall constitute a strike.
(s) Public Indemnification. No federal judge complained of, or sued
civilly by a complainant pursuant to this statute shall be defended at public
expense or by any elected or appointed public counsel, nor shall any federal
judge be reimbursed from public funds for any losses sustained under this
(t) Redress. The provisions of this statute are in addition to other
redress that may exist and are not mutually exclusive.
(u) Preeminence. Preeminence shall be given to this statute in any case
of conflicts with any other federal statutes, case law, or common law to the
contrary. The foreperson of the Special Federal Grand Jury shall read, or
cause to be read, this statute to the respective Jurors semi-annually
during the first week of business in January and July.
From: CryerLaw@... _[mailto:CryerLaw@...]_
Sent: Monday, April 20, 2009 6:20 AM
Subject: Exposing Judges
I'm attaching an opening for a new section of the Truth Attack web site. It is aimed at federal judges and we have some judges we're working up already. But if we can get your people to report abuses and asinine comments and actions of other federal judges we can expose them to ridicule and (heaven forbid) embarrassment they've earned.
We still have writers across the country ready to write and publish articles in the judge's neighborhood if only to report that the judge has earned a place of dishonor on the internet.
It is not rational for us to do nothing until we can hold these godlets
accountable by law. We need to hold them accountable by any right we have.
If we can add a right to call them down legally that will be great, but until then we need to use our right to call them down publicly. This is what I was talking about when I proposed that your network and organization can do a great deal of good if they will serve as the eyes and ears so we can serve as the voice, holding these egomaniacal jerks out for public scorn. A little public scorn won't hurt your efforts in obtaining legislation, either.